Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?

This editorial kicked off one of the most dramatic self-reckonings in modern science. In 2011-2012, psychology hit a full-blown 'crisis of confidence,' and the editors pinpoint three things that lit the fuse. First, a prominent researcher named Stapel was caught fabricating data wholesale. Second, Daryl Bem published a study claiming to find evidence for ESP (precognition, specifically) in a top journal, which triggered both fascination and widespread ridicule. Third, researchers Simmons and colleagues showed that by using common but flexible data analysis tricks, you could make completely fake effects look statistically significant way more often than the supposed 5% false alarm rate. That last one was a gut punch: it meant the problem wasn't just fraud or fringe topics — ordinary, accepted research practices were quietly inflating false results across the board. By 2012, surveys revealed how widespread these questionable research practices really were, suspiciously too many published results clustered right at the magic threshold of statistical significance, and bitter public fights broke out over failed attempts to replicate famous findings. The special journal section introduced here gathers fifteen articles tackling both the diagnosis and potential cures — from replication attempts and Bayesian statistics (a different way of weighing evidence) to pre-registration (publicly declaring your analysis plan before collecting data) and open data sharing. What makes this piece especially fascinating is how a single ESP paper became a catalyst that forced all of psychology to look in the mirror.